Extracted Text

The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:

CRS-4

Several bills were considered to extend the TEUC benefits. S. 2714 and H.R. 5089would have extended the first tier of TEUC benefits to equal the lesser of the number ofweeks an individual received under regular UC or 26 times the individual's averageweekly benefit amount. S. 2892, S. 3009 and H.R. 5491 would have provided all eligibleTEUC recipients with 26 weeks of first tier benefits, would have reduced the TEUC-Xbenefits (second tier) in high-unemployment states to 7 weeks, and would have extendedthe program until June 30, 2003. H.R. 5587 would have extended the TEUC program forhigh unemployment states and allow individuals already entitled to TEUC benefits onDecember 28, 2002, to receive their full benefit entitlement.On November 14, 2002, the Senate passed an amended version of H.R. 3529 whichwould have extended TEUC through March 31, 2003. On the same day, the House passedH.R. 5063, which would have continued benefits until February 2, 2003, for workerseligible for TEUC or TEUC-X by December 28, 2002, and would have extended theregular TEUC benefits only for workers in high unemployment states until February 2,2003. However, no agreement was reached on these measures and the 107th Congressadjourned November 22, 2002, without having passed an extension of the TEUCprogram. The TEUC program expired on December 28, 2002.Proposals to Reform Unemployment CompensationIn recent years, calls for reforming the UC program have emerged from variousinterest groups, including labor, employers, and state employment agencies. These groupsargue that changes in the economy and the workforce since the program was enacted inthe 1930s have led to inefficiencies and inequities in the UC program that need to bereformed. Today more women are in the workforce. They, and many new entrants intothe labor force are often employed in part-time, temporary or short-term jobs that canleave them ineligible for UC during periods of unemployment. Many see the declines inUC recipiency as due, in part, to stricter state eligibility requirements related to earningsminimums and reduced growth in manufacturing. Employers see inefficiencies in theadministration of the program, including complex tax forms, multiple tax filingrequirements, and complex record keeping requirements.In the 107th Congress, H.R. 3024 would have provided for state collection of theFUTA tax. The bill would have provided for interest premiums or penalties based onwhether states exceeded or failed to meet state funding goals during a quarter. Stateswould also have been provided interest-free advances to state accounts if they met theirfunding goals. The bill would have also lowered the EB program trigger from 5% to 4%.In addition, states would have been required to distribute state-specific informationpackets to unemployed individuals that would explain UC eligibility requirements. H.R.773, the Parity for Part-Time Workers Act, a bill of more limited scope, would haveexpanded UC eligibility to part-time workers. As part of the FY 2003 budget request, theAdministration proposed several reforms to the UC program. These included graduallyshifting responsibility for financing the UC benefits and administration to states over a5 year transition period; repealing the FUTA surtax as of January 1, 2003; and loweringthe IUR trigger in the permanent EB program from 5% to 4%.H.R. 4373, introduced on April 16, 2002, would have expanded UC eligibility toinclude certain part-time workers, workers who qualified for UC under an alternativewage base period; certain seasonal workers; workers who left employment because of